9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A)(3) of the Rules. Under the circumstances, the learned ITAT has rightly observed that there is no breach of Rule 46(A)(3) of the Rules as alleged by the revenue. Thus it cannot be said that the learned ITAT has committed any error in dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue and confirming the order passed by the learned CIT(A) restricting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of hedging loss treating it as speculation loss to ₹ 1,01,417/- instead of ₹ 1,06,65,670/-. No substantial question of law arises. - Decided against revenue. - TAX APPEAL NO. 160 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2015 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. S.H.VORA, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2008-09 declaring the total income at ₹ 12,17,157/- and the same was processed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under Section 143(3) of the Act was issued. On verification of the trading account, it was found that the assessee had debited the amount of ₹ 1,06,65,670/- as MCX trading difference. The Assessing Officer considered the said transaction as speculative in nature. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee asking it to show cause as to why the MCX loss should not be treated as speculation loss. It was the case on behalf of the assessee that it was a hedging transaction and, therefore, as per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reating it as speculation loss to ₹ 1,01,417/- instead of ₹ 1,06,65,670/- admitting the additional evidence furnished before him without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer in violation of Rule 46(A)(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. By the impugned judgment and order the learned ITAT has dismissed the said appeal by observing that as such all the materials, which came to be considered by the learned CIT(A), were already produced before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer scrutinized the same. What was produced before the learned CIT(A) was only the details of the sale in Excel Sheet on the basis of the purchase bills, which were already produced before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, there was no vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carved out from the bills issued by MCX during the year and which were already before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, it cannot be said that as such the learned CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence for which opportunity was required to be given to the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46(A)(3) of the Rules. Under the circumstances, the learned ITAT has rightly observed that there is no breach of Rule 46(A)(3) of the Rules as alleged by the revenue. (4.1) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned ITAT has committed any error in dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue and confirming the order passed by the learned CIT(A) restricting the additions made by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
